Instances Are Anti-Mmo Content

Recommended Posts

Whether they come in the form of structured PVP or dungeons, instances are anti-MMO content and the bane to the concept of an MMO. It's co-op content that takes players out of the open world and places them in their own segregated environment. I hope we don't see it in any form in this game.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

bring back open worlds, the random human-generated encounters which follow, the relationships and rivalries that form are far more rich and important to an immersive and lasting gaming experience than sanitized boxes of finite content.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There is no strict definition of what constitutes an MMO. Also, it's beside the point. The only thing that determines whether there should be instances or not is whether the implementation will be perceived as fun for the intended demographic.

Anyways, I thought the original message was to create something new, not go back to 1995.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There is no strict definition of what constitutes an MMO. Also, it's beside the point. The only thing that determines whether there should be instances or not is whether the implementation will be perceived as fun for the intended demographic.

Anyways, I thought the original message was to create something new, not go back to 1995.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Whether they come in the form of structured PVP or dungeons, instances are anti-MMO content and the bane to the concept of an MMO. It's co-op content that takes players out of the open world and places them in their own segregated environment. I hope we don't see it in any form in this game.

Wrong. Instances do have a valid use.

I do agree however that the instances are overused (and abused) in many MMOs.

So companies (Cryptic) even have whole engines based around instances - and in that case I agree the game goes from being an MMO to a "Lobby Game".

Some games (like DDO by Turbine) instancing is totally appropriate. Pen and Paper D&D was sold in 'modules' - the original instancing.

In this case though, you need to look at the Devs.

If you are worried about instances and open world look right at Wizard 101. In that game there are instances (99% of the boss fights) which, in context, is appropriate. However there is one notable exception : The Kraken in Triton Ave - which is not instanced

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually you do appear to be interested in it, since a semantical dispute is arguing about the definition of a word and you just argued that there was no strict definition of what a MMO is.

Wrong. Instances do have a valid use.

I do agree however that the instances are overused (and abused) in many MMOs.

So companies (Cryptic) even have whole engines based around instances - and in that case I agree the game goes from being an MMO to a "Lobby Game".

Some games (like DDO by Turbine) instancing is totally appropriate. Pen and Paper D&D was sold in 'modules' - the original instancing.

In this case though, you need to look at the Devs.

If you are worried about instances and open world look right at Wizard 101. In that game there are instances (99% of the boss fights) which, in context, is appropriate. However there is one notable exception : The Kraken in Triton Ave - which is not instanced

Despite what the description says - it is easy to get a spot for the battle - sometimes you have to wait a couple of minutes... no biggy.

I have always wondered if it was an experiment to 'prove a point'?

Mr Coleman?

There might be a valid use in a game, but that doesn't make it any more or less MMO content. DDO is a lousy example btw since it was originally going to be a co-op online game, but when the company was bought by a Chinese F2P MMO company, they shifted it to try and make it more MMO-like.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There might be a valid use in a game, but that doesn't make it any more or less MMO content. DDO is a lousy example btw since it was originally going to be a co-op online game, but when the company was bought by a Chinese F2P MMO company, they shifted it to try and make it more MMO-like.

Are you talking DDO by Turbine... OR Neverwinter by Cryptic?

Neverwinter was supposed to be a co-op because Turbine hold the rights to a D&D MMO until 2016 IIRC? (There was legal action over this and I have the files somewhere). Atari attempted to stab Turbine in the back and breached contract on this. It was settled out of court.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Neverwinter was supposed to be a co-op because Turbine hole the rights to a D&D MMO until 2016 IIRC? (There was legal action over this and I have the files somewhere). Atari attempted to stab Turbine in the back and breached contract on this. It was settled out of court.

Ah sorry, I do get those two mixed up. The primary difference between DDO and Guild Wars 1 was that ArenaNet was upfront that their game wasn't an MMO. When most of your content isn't MMO, it is a serious categorization error to call it one.

I'm not currently arguing anything. I'm simply pointing out the mistake in your previous post.

You are engaging in a semantic dispute without giving any opposing definition of what an MMO actually is.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ah sorry, I do get those two mixed up. The primary difference between DDO and Guild Wars 1 was that ArenaNet was upfront that their game wasn't an MMO. When most of your content isn't MMO, it is a serious categorization error to call it one.

I agree. In fact this is a point I have argued on MMORPG.com for some time.

In fact I even started a thread there in about 2008? 2007? (years ago anyway) pointing out that Farmville was an MMO under their rules. More recently I have argued that with modern Dev tools (Unity Engine etc) anyone can be a 'game developer' and they need to tighten up the definitions or be over-run with crap.